Prothonotary
Lafrenière*.
A
Notice
of
Status
Review
was
issued
by
the
Court
to
the
parties
on
June
10,
1999
to
show
cause
no
later
than
July
12,
1999
why
the
application
should
not
be
dismissed
for
delay
in
accordance
with
Rule
380
of
the
Federal
Court
Rules,
1998
(“the
Rules”).
In
response
to
the
status
review,
the
Applicant,
who
has
been
acting
on
his
own
behalf
throughout,
submitted
written
representations
on
July
12,
1999.
By
way
of
background,
the
Applicant
filed
an
originating
notice
of
motion
on
February
26,
1998
seeking
an
order
setting
aside
a
reconsideration
decision
of
Revenue
Canada
dated
January
16,
1998
and
an
order
referring
the
matter
back
to
Revenue
Canada
to
cancel
interest
charges
and
penalties
imposed
on
the
Applicant’s
income
taxes
for
the
period
from
1988
to
1991.
The
Applicant
did
not
file
affidavit
material
in
support
of
his
application
within
the
time
prescribed
by
the
Rules.
By
motion
dated
March
25,
1998
and
filed
April
23,
1998,
the
applicant
sought
leave
to
file
his
affidavit
material.
After
the
Applicant
failed
to
serve
the
Respondent
with
his
motion,
he
was
directed
by
the
Court
to
effect
service
within
10
days.
On
June
18,
1998,
Mr.
Justice
Hugessen
granted
the
Applicant
an
extension
of
time
to
file
his
affidavit,
which
the
Applicant
promptly
did
that
same
day.
On
September
16,
1998,
the
Applicant
tendered
a
number
of
documents
for
filing,
presumably
to
serve
as
his
Application
Record.
The
Associate
Senior
Prothonotary
concluded
that
the
documents
were
irregular
and
ordered
them
returned
to
the
Applicant.
The
Applicant
was
granted
an
extension
of
time
at
the
same
time
to
file
his
Application
Record
no
later
than
October
20,
1998.
On
October
14,
1998,
the
applicant
filed
a
notice
of
motion
on
an
ex
parte
basis
seeking
a
further
extension
of
time
to
file
additional
affidavit
evidence
and
to
file
his
Application
Record.
The
affidavit
which
the
Appli-
cant
sought
to
file
was
that
of
his
psychiatrist,
a
Dr.
Thurling.
The
proposed
affidavit
was,
in
the
Applicant’s
submissions,
at
the
heart
of
his
appeal.
Because
no
justification
had
been
provided
by
the
Applicant
to
proceed
without
notice
to
the
Respondent,
the
Applicant
was
directed
by
the
Associate
Senior
Prothonotary
to
serve
the
motion
record
on
the
Respondent’s
counsel
within
10
days.
By
Order
dated
December
18,
1998,
Madame
Justice
Reed
denied
the
Applicant’s
motion
for
an
extension
of
time
to
file
additional
affidavit
material
as
well
as
his
Application
Record.
On
February
24,
1999,
the
Applicant
was
unsuccessful
in
obtaining
an
extension
of
time
to
file
a
notice
of
appeal
from
the
above
decision.
There
is
no
indication
on
file
of
any
further
steps
being
taken
by
the
Applicant
in
the
proceeding
until
July
12,
1999
when
he
filed
written
representations
in
response
to
the
status
review.
To
partially
excuse
the
delay,
the
Applicant
submits
that
he
had
endeavoured
to
file
his
Application
Record,
however
he
has
been
prejudiced
in
doing
so
by
“erroneous
information
having
been
provided
by
employee
[sic]
of
the
Reistry
[sic]
office
of
the
Court
with
respect
to
the
filing
of
the
Application
Record”.
He
also
blames
the
Court
for
failing
to
advise
him
on
a
timely
basis
of
the
denial
of
his
motion
for
an
extension
of
time
to
file
additional
material,
thereby
denying
him
the
right
to
appeal
the
decision.
The
Applicant’s
explanations
are
without
merit.
Having
chosen
to
represent
himself,
the
Applicant
was
required
to
follow
the
Rules.
He
alone
was
responsible
for
the
delay
and
ultimate
rejection
of
the
Application
Record.
The
Court
cannot
be
faulted
for
the
Applicant’s
disregard
of
the
Rules.
The
Applicant
has
recently
filed
a
motion
for
an
order
extending
the
time
to
file
the
original
Application
Record
submitted
(and
rejected)
in
September
1998.
The
Applicant
further
advises
that
he
intends
to
file
a
requisition
for
hearing
once
his
motion
for
extension
of
time
has
been
accepted.
Mr.
Justice
Hugessen
established
the
following
test
to
be
applied
by
the
Court
when
conducting
a
status
review
in
Baroud
v.
R.
(1998),
160
F.T.R.
91
(Fed.
T.D.):
In
deciding
in
what
manner
to
exercise
the
wide
discretion
granted
to
it
by
Rule
382
at
the
conclusion
of
a
status
review,
it
seems
to
me
that
the
Court
needs
to
be
concerned
primarily
with
two
questions:
1.
what
are
the
reasons
why
the
case
has
not
moved
forward
faster
and
do
they
justify
the
delay
that
has
occurred?;
and
2.
what
steps
is
the
plaintiff
now
proposing
to
move
the
matter
forward?
The
two
questions
are
clearly
inter-related
in
that
if
there
is
a
good
excuse
for
the
case
not
having
progressed
more
quickly,
the
Court
is
not
likely
to
be
very
exigent
in
requiring
an
action
plan
from
the
plaintiff.
On
the
other
hand,
if
no
good
reason
is
advanced
to
justify
the
delay,
the
plaintiff
should
be
prepared
to
demonstrate
that
he
recognizes
that
he
has
a
responsibility
to
the
Court
to
move
his
action
along.
Mere
declarations
of
good
intent
and
of
the
desire
to
proceed
are
Clearly
not
enough.
A
review
of
the
Court
file
reveals
that
the
Applicant
attempted,
somewhat
awkwardly,
to
move
his
application
along
from
the
time
the
application
was
filed
to
the
date
his
motion
for
an
extension
of
time
to
file
a
notice
of
appeal
was
dismissed
on
February
24,
1999.
There
is
no
explanation
provided
however
for
the
subsequent
delay
of
approximately
four
months.
In
order
to
be
allowed
to
continue
with
his
application,
the
Applicant
therefore
had
to
demonstrate
that
concrete
and
prompt
steps
would
be
taken
to
move
the
matter
forward.
The
only
step
identified
by
the
Applicant
at
this
stage
is
a
further
interlocutory
motion
to
obtain
an
extension
of
time
to
file,
in
his
words,
“the
original
Applicant’s
Application
Record,
the
same
record
that
was
originally
filed
by
the
Applicant
on
a
timely
basis
on
or
about
September
16,
1998
and
rejected
by
the
Court
as
being
a
‘pile
of
papers’”.
Such
a
motion
would
obviously
prove
futile.
The
Court
has
already
ruled
on
this
matter
and
the
Applicant
has
not
put
forward
any
new
facts
which
would
warrant
the
Court’s
reconsideration.
The
filing
of
an
Application
Record
is
an
integral
procedural
step.
The
Applicant
was
denied
an
extension
of
time
to
file
his
Application
Record
in
December
1998
and
his
attempt
to
appeal
the
decision
was
unsuccessful.
As
a
result,
the
Respondent
could
have
subsequently
moved
to
dismiss
the
application
for
judicial
review
based
on
the
Applicant’s
unexcused
failure
to
file
his
Application
Record
on
time.
In
Delisle
v.
Canada
(Attorney
General)
(1996),
121
F.T.R.
256
(Fed.
T.D.),
Prothonotary
Morneau
made
the
following
comments
regarding
the
consequences
of
the
Applicant’s
failure
to
file
an
Application
Record
in
similar
circumstances
under
the
former
Rules:
Based
on
this
court’s
judgments
and
the
scheme
of
rules
1600
to
1620,
it
seems
to
me
that
once
an
applicant
in
a
specific
situation
has
been
denied
permission
under
rule
1619
to
disregard
the
requirement
of
filing
an
application
record
under
rule
1606,
the
applicant’s
application
for
judicial
review
will
in
general
be
struck
out.
The
Applicant
has
been
provided
an
opportunity
to
satisfactorily
explain
the
entire
delay
in
the
proceeding
and
to
justify
why
this
matter
should
be
allowed
to
continue.
He
has
failed
to
do
so.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content